No Trophies

[Michael W Richards]

The crime scene allowed him to relax for a few minutes and indulge himself.....yes, of course there were 17 people in that house that could have interrupted him, and yes, many windows of the neighbours looked into that yard....but it would seem he didnt care about that or the rising sun....and we know its the only near daylight kill.

Unless of course, the murder took place, in near darkness, around the same hour as Polly was killed - when the risks would have been appreciably lower. At least one estimate of the time of death would allow for that.

Phil

Am I debating this with someone who truly believes Annie was killed nearer to 3:30 am than 5:30am? So what...did the next prostitute and her client just step over Annie when Cadosche hears a voice from that yard? Richardson, without having any reason to do so, is a liar?

"[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her."

Phillips stated that when he arrived at half past 6 she had been dead about 2 hours but noted that the cold may have affected the body's cooling as well as the extreme loss of blood.

It is well within his given opinion that she had been dead over an hour....since right about when Cadosche hears the "no". It is not within his comments to suggest a death at around 3:30am. For one..thats 3 hours before the medical expert arrived, not 2...as he stated, and secondly, we have the doctors own words concerning the estimate, the temperature and the blood loss.

Best regards

[Phil H]

Sorry to intrude, Michael (I hadn't realised these threads were exclusive property).

neverthless, I not only question the time of death, I also question Richardson's testimony as suspect. Questioning is NOT to deny or have a closed mind - it is an intellectual exercise to help us consider options.

Again, apologies if alternative views offend.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

A few minutes after that.

Cheers.
LC

A "few minutes" after 3.30?

And if I say that Mizen would have been in place around 3.55? Ten minutes after 3.45, that is, when Paul passed down Buckīs Row. Or do you have him there at 3.35?

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Sorry to intrude, Michael (I hadn't realised these threads were exclusive property).

neverthless, I not only question the time of death, I also question Richardson's testimony as suspect. Questioning is NOT to deny or have a closed mind - it is an intellectual exercise to help us consider options.

Again, apologies if alternative views offend.

Phil

Feigning manners isnt as convincing as having real ones Phil...but you are welcome to question any and all of the data that you read regarding these murders. And any witness account. By all means.

Just as it is within my power to present facts that dispute the alternate view expressed.

I had thought many members had supposedly studied these events long enough, and from enough angles, that they can feel comfortable about making some conclusions about the validity of the data and the truth of situation. Like in the case of Packer, Schwartz, or Hutchinson.

But of course everyone is free to continue to explore whatever avenues they are interested in, and whatever sources they believe. They may not always get polite responses in return however...many who have studied for over 20 years tend to tire of the baseless questioning and the blind embrace of myths.

Best regards

[lynn cates]

late

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"A "few minutes" after 3.30?"

Yes. A problem?

3.55 seems a bit late, eh?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"A "few minutes" after 3.30?"

Yes. A problem?

3.55 seems a bit late, eh?

Cheers.
LC

3.55 does not necessarily sound late to my ears. If we accept that Paul was correct when stating it was exactly 3.45 as he walked down the street, then we must keep in mind that he said that it took around four minutes to reach the intersection of Hanbury and Bakerīs Row, where Mizen was, that takes us to 3.49. Then it could have taken a minute, perhaps, for Lechmere to speak to Mizen, that takes us to 3.50, and after that Mizen proceeded to knock up people by his own admission, adding perhaps one or two more minutes to the tally, and ooops itīs 3.52. Then he walked down to Buckīs Row, and that would have taken two or three minutes, presumably.

Which takes us to...? Ah, yes - 3.55!

Of course, the give and take mechanism chimes in here too, but all in all, we may not be very far off the mark. I find it hard to believe that Mizen could have been in place before 3.50, and that would still leave a twenty minute gap between your 3.30 estimation for the cutting business and the instance when Mixen saw blood still flowing form Nicholīs neck. To me, that looks like a problem.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

As anyone who has lived in a high rise apartment knows, it is astonishing how many people never consider "up". I lived in a building that overlooked a blind alley. People dealt drugs there, they used the bathroom there, prostitutes brought customers there... and not a single one of them make any attempt to shield their activities from above. I had a professor who said that we were not a sufficiently technological society to look up. And most of us don't. When we walk around, we don't look up, because there is no major threat to us that is up. People looked up after 9/11, but that fear faded. My neighbor was a vice cop who made a TON of arrests in that alley, and it never failed that a: these people had absolutely no idea how he could have seen them and b: evidently forgot and came back again and again. I don't think the Ripper ever considered up. I don't think it occurred to him. I don't think it occurred to the prostitutes who used that yard, or they wouldn't have kept taking clients there. We don't take up into account in our daily dealings. It's not surprising that Jack would not. Which means he was more lucky than smart.

[Wickerman]

I thought the issue was, "we" tend not to look down.
Had anybody chosen to do so, we might not be here today.

.

[lynn cates]

unless

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I don't see a problem UNLESS she were dead when cut. If she were still even faintly alive when Cross (oh, very well) and Paul saw her, then even 3.55 is OK.

Cheers.
LC

[Barnaby]

I suppose I side with those arguing that he was interrupted with Nichols and not with Chapman. While it is true that there might be a tight timeline with Chapman, it either wasn't that tight or he didn't need much time, as we know he was not caught. Maybe it took him but 5-10 minutes; perhaps he was just unluckily interrupted with Nichols.

In my opinion, the Nichols/Chapman mutiliation issue reminds me of the Double Event mutiliation debate, just on a slightly longer time scale. The killer strikes and if all goes well (Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly) there is an extended cooling off period. If his is interrupted (Nichols, Stride) he gets to work shortly thereafter. There are too few data points to make any definitive case, but to me this is suggestive.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I don't see a problem UNLESS she were dead when cut. If she were still even faintly alive when Cross (oh, very well) and Paul saw her, then even 3.55 is OK.

Cheers.
LC

So letīs turn it around, Lynn! If Paul and Lechmere saw her around 3.45, and if she had been cut at around 3.30 - how would she still be alive fifteen minutes after she had had her neck severed down to the bone, cutting off the blood supply to the brain? And are we to accept that Paul felt her heart beating, pumping blood around in her body, whereas it had gushed out of her neck for a quarter of an hour?

How would she still be bleeding at 3.55, if every vessel in her neck had been severed 25 minutes earlier?

What examples do we have of people who have managed these remarkable feats?

To me, 3.30 is totally out of the question.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

shortly

Hello Barnaby.

Difficult to see how a week and two days counts as shortly thereafter.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

not too early

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I won't bore you with a lesson in LVP timekeeping (we've both seen sufficient); suffice it to say that even 5 minutes could make a huge difference here.

People die at different rates. For one, 3 minutes holding the breath could be fatal; another might just expire after 8-10. Similar may be observed with blood flow.

Hence, I see no reason to discount 3.30-3.35 as the time for the cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I won't bore you with a lesson in LVP timekeeping (we've both seen sufficient); suffice it to say that even 5 minutes could make a huge difference here.

It could make difference. One of them differences would be that 3.30 disappears in favour of 3.35. It would be better - but not enough.

People die at different rates. For one, 3 minutes holding the breath could be fatal; another might just expire after 8-10. Similar may be observed with blood flow.

You can hold your breath, but holding your blood is a lot tougher. A totally severed throat will, in combination with the landwinnings represented by Newton, bleed for a comparatively short period of time. And twenty, twentyfive minutes is not short in that context.

Hence, I see no reason to discount 3.30-3.35 as the time for the cutting.

Well, I do. The further away from 3.45 we move that cut, the less credible we will be. If she was cut at 3.45 and if Mizen saw her still bleeding at 3.55, then that in itself would represent a very long time to bleed out from such extensive damage (letīs not forget that she had other damage too).

If you can find an example where a person, lying flat on the ground with his/her neck severed, all vessels opened up, has been bleeding from the neck twenty to twentyfive minutes after the cut, it would help your estimate tremendeously.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Double answer - deleted